Examining the LLAMA aptitude tests

Abstract

This study assesses the reliability 1 of the LLAMA aptitude tests (Meara, 2005). The LLAMA tests were designed as shorter, free, language-neutral tests loosely based on the MLAT tests (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). They contain four sub-components: vocabulary acquisition, sound recognition, sound-symbol correspondence and grammatical inferencing. Granena (2013) and Rogers et al. (2016) provided initial results regarding factors which might influence LLAMA test scores. This paper develops this previous work by examining some of issues raised with a larger cohort and focuses on the following research questions. Data were collected from 240 participants aged 10-75 for RQ1-3. We found no significant differences in terms of language background (RQ1) but instructed second language learners significantly outperformed monolinguals (RQ2). For RQ3 we found that the younger groups were outperformed by all the other groups.For RQ4, we investigated how much variance in LLAMA test results six individual background factors could explain. We combined data from Rogers et al. (2016) and this study giving 404 participants in total. Using a multiple regression analysis, we found that prior L2 instruction predicted more of the variance (6%) than any other factor. We suggest that when using the LLAMA tests, researchers should consider controlling for language learning experience.This study scrutinises the components of the LLAMA tests with a large set of data. We conclude that the results are robust across a range of individual differences but suggest that different norms may be needed for younger age groups and those who have received prior L2 instruction.

On Bilingual Aptitude for Learning New Languages: The Roles of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Individual Differences

“…Interestingly, age was not a significant predictor in any model although it approached significance for grammatical inferencing. This goes against common perceptions of older adults as poor learners but parallels Rogers et al.’s () finding of no differences in aptitude between young adults and adults aged 30 to 70 years. Additionally, it complements evidence for domain‐general cognitive and neurological reserve in aging bilinguals (Abutalebi & Green, ; Gold, Johnson, & Powell, ; Perani et al., ) and preserved skills for processing known languages in older adults (Wingfield & Grossman, ).…”

“…In sum, most evidence has suggested a fairly strong positive link between nonverbal IQ and aptitude (Biedroń & Szczepaniak, ; Granena, ; Grigorenko et al., ; Xiang et al., ), but other studies have differed on this (Biedroń, ; Rogers et al., ). In addition, the relationship between aptitude and nonverbal IQ has seemed to be strongest for the grammatical inferencing and sound–symbol association components (Granena, ; Sasaki, ; Xiang et al., ), although results have varied on this point as well (Wesche et al., ).…”

“…Rogers et al. () also used the LLAMA aptitude battery but returned to the question of the nature of prior language experience on aptitude. They compared LLAMA scores of monolinguals to bilinguals who had learned their L2 with little to no instruction (acquiring two languages before the age of five years) and to bilinguals who had learned their L2 in classroom settings.…”

“…Rogers et al. () also looked at how individual differences, including IQ, play out in variability in LLAMA aptitude test scores. However, they used self‐reported frequency of completing logic puzzles to index logic training and indirectly indicate IQ (reasoning) instead of administering a standardized IQ test.…”

“…Most studies of the effect of IQ on bilinguals’ aptitude have only tested instructed L2 learners (e.g., Biedroń & Szczepaniak, ; Sáfár & Kormos, ; Thompson, ; Xiang et al., ), although Rogers et al. () began to explore uninstructed bilinguals’ aptitude and IQ. Thus, although we do not suggest that uninstructed bilinguals uniformly differ in IQ from other bilinguals or monolinguals, when considering the relationships between uninstructed bilinguals’ language experiences and aptitude, it is relevant to also compare those relationships to that of nonverbal IQ and aptitude.…”